For some time many news organizations have trumpeted, as ABC’s Good Morning America did, the “cutting-edge” healing powers of platelet-rich plasma therapy or PRP. As is often the case in stories about wonderful new therapies, evidence is cast aside in favor of sparkling anecdotes such as that of pro football player Hines Ward.
Well today evidence gets its turn. Stories by the Wall Street Journal and by the New York Times point out, as the Times put it, “the first rigorous study asking whether the platelet injections actually work finds they are no more effective than saltwater.”
This study was in people with injured Achilles tendons. But as the Times explains, PRP has already been extended to so many uses – “treating muscle sprains and tendon pulls and tears, arthritis, bone fractures and surgical wounds — that Dr. Bruce Reider, editor of The American Journal of Sports Medicine, said in a recent editorial that perhaps it should be called “platelet-rich panacea.”
The lead investigator was even quoted saying, “We are sorry for the patients”
Supposedly a forthcoming study will tout PRP’s benefits in elbow problems, but the Times reports that:
“Dr. Freddie H. Fu, an orthopedist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the study stacked the deck in favor of platelet injections. …
Although 73 percent of patients given platelet injections improved after a year, compared with 54 percent for steroid injections, Dr. Fu said that was not much success. “Any time you touch a patient, you get 70 percent success,” he said, adding that even placebos give that rate over time.
… Fu said he was keeping an open mind but still did not offer platelet injections. “I just do not have the heart to ask patients to pay for an unproven therapy,” he said.
Guarantee: this won’t be the last you hear of PRP as it is being looked at to treat injured shoulders, knees, elbows, heels – you name it. The old medical maxim applies – to a man with a new hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like